home

Sunday Night Open Thread

Time for a new open thread. Here it is, all topics welcome.

< Sunday TV Watching
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    What's funnier about this (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun May 24, 2015 at 08:05:52 PM EST
    "You seemed to indicate that as president, you wouldn't necessarily obey court rulings, even the Supreme Court," Fox News host Chris Wallace pointed out during an interview on Sunday. "We have operated under the principle of judicial review since the Marbury v. Madison case in 1803."

    According to the GOP candidate, the United States would be operating under "judicial supremacy" instead of judicial review if bans on same-sex marriage were to be struck down.

    "Presidents have understood that the Supreme Court cannot make a law, they cannot make it, the legislature has to make it, the executive branch has to sign it and enforce it," Huckabee said. "And the notion that the Supreme Court comes up with the ruling and that automatically subjects the two other branches to following it defies everything there is about the three equal branches of government."

    "The Supreme Court is not the supreme branch," he added. "And for God's sake, it's not the Supreme Being."

    Huckabee wondered what would happen if the Supreme Court ruled on "who was going to be the next president."

    Huckleberrys laughable naked pandering or the bit about what would happen IF the court ruled on who would be the next president

    Day-um, I coulda sworn that already happened.

    On the subject of FOX news (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun May 24, 2015 at 08:07:56 PM EST
    Economist Bruce Bartlett, a former adviser to both Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, warned over the weekend that Fox News had damaged the Republican Party by creating a bubble for conservatives to brainwash themselves.

    In his paper "How Fox News Changed American Media and Political Dynamics" published earlier this month, Bartlett theorized that watching the network was essentially "self-brainwashing" for viewers, making them believe that the United States was a more conservative nation than it actually was. And so the Republican Party had responded by running radical conservatives that representative Fox News viewers, but not the true state of the electorate.

    "Many conservatives live in a bubble where they watch only Fox News on television, they listen only to conservative talk radio -- Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, many of the same people," Bartlett told CNN's Brian Stelter on Sunday. "When they go onto the Internet, they look at conservative websites like National Review, Newsmax, World Net Daily."



    Parent
    Yep (none / 0) (#5)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun May 24, 2015 at 08:17:58 PM EST
    and you see examples of it everyday, on blogs, people you know and in other ways. The funniest times are when they start shouting stuff out in public places and think everyone agrees with them.

    These candidates like Huckabee are blowing themselves up because they reside in a bubble. Jeb Bush says Iraq wasn't a mistake because he resides in that bubble. Huckabee defends the Druggars because it is what the bubble people want to hear.

    Hysterically today they all had a meltdown because of TPP and not because it's free trade but because it's giving "the dictator" more powers.

    Hmm, is Fox going to change their ways or has it just been too lucrative to keep fleecing the rubes? I say they are going to keep fleecing the rubes until they go off the air.

    Parent

    Love the term (none / 0) (#17)
    by smott on Mon May 25, 2015 at 01:41:59 AM EST
    "Bubble people"...perfect.

    Parent
    On CNN (none / 0) (#1)
    by Repack Rider on Sun May 24, 2015 at 08:02:49 PM EST
    Activist Deray McKesson told host Brian Stelter something most people know.  Police kill defenseless people, and then lie about it.  Stelter betrayed his stupidity by actually questioning the factual basis of something anyone can watch on YouTube.

    Mr. McKesson also explained that while unarmed Black protesters are often met with violent arrests, the white bikers who engaged in a shootout in Waco are seen on camera afterward relaxing with the arresting officers.  What's up with violent, criminal, armed WHITE people being treated with such respect?

    Predictably, the h8rs pile on, accusing this intelligent, dignified man of every racist form of contempt.

    Worth checking out.

    Just watching this on C&L (none / 0) (#4)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun May 24, 2015 at 08:08:51 PM EST
    was considering linking to it.

    Parent
    Was Deray (none / 0) (#6)
    by Redbrow on Mon May 25, 2015 at 12:00:30 AM EST
    Asked how much he has earned form his AstroTurf activism? Did he disclose who is funding him? #cutthechecks

    Was he asked why he posted photos of himself with Dorian Johnson on Twitter yesterday only to delete them minutes later?

    Parent

    Gee, you seem to be following him (none / 0) (#7)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon May 25, 2015 at 12:13:57 AM EST
    pretty closely.  

    Do you have any substantial objections to what he says?  

    Even if either or both of your smears have some basis in fact, what is wrong with what he is saying?

    Parent

    I do follow him closely (2.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Redbrow on Mon May 25, 2015 at 12:21:45 AM EST
    Where he goes, riots seem to follow.

    The biggest substantial objection I have regarding the initial post is the disinformation regarding the bikers being all white.
    The mug shots show various races there are many Hispanic names.

    Parent

    Really, there wouldn't be any riots in Ferguson (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon May 25, 2015 at 01:05:08 AM EST
    or Baltimore if he hadn't shown up when he did?

    it also struck me you could say that about various sports championships, that riots occur often after a championship in pro baseball, basketball, etc, so the same pattern applies to the NFL, the NBA, etc.

    Do you get my point?

    You sound like the segregationists in the 60s who explained that their African-American populations weren't interested in voting, etc, it was all because of  "outside agitators".

    I'm sure the resemblance is purely coincidental.

    Parent

    Deray stereotypes (none / 0) (#9)
    by Redbrow on Mon May 25, 2015 at 12:32:46 AM EST
    Them all as criminals. Records searched by The Associated Press show more than 115 of the 170 people arrested in the aftermath of a motorcycle gang shootout outside a Central Texas restaurant have not been convicted of a crime in Texas.


    Parent
    Yeah, just fine, upstanding people (none / 0) (#10)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon May 25, 2015 at 12:56:47 AM EST
    and how many of them were convicted of a crime outside of Texas?

    Anyway, he smeared the good reputation of some people who are in a motorcycle gang.  Gosh, that's pretty weak tea.  

    Parent

    He claims they are getting special treatment (none / 0) (#12)
    by Redbrow on Mon May 25, 2015 at 01:07:21 AM EST

    The bikers were shot at with real bullets. I am sure they would have much preferred tear gas and paintball rounds.

    They are all being held on million dollars bail. Ferguson rioters had bail set in the hundreds and low thousands. Even the serious offenses like assault and arson had bail set in the low five figures while waiting for trial.

    Some "privilege".

    Parent

    The rioters didn't cause one death (3.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon May 25, 2015 at 01:20:06 AM EST
    while under the felony rule act, even if some of the bikers were killed by cop bullets, the bikers who first opened up would be responsible for the deaths in question.

    Murderous motorcycle gangsters get treated worse than people who are charged with rioting and the destruction of property.

    You can cry a river for the former, but I don't think you get anyone but mcBain the racist troll to agree with you.

    Maybe you could be the new racist troll around here. I'll be glad to recommend you to JL if you like.

    Parent

    And there it is (1.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Redbrow on Mon May 25, 2015 at 01:27:29 AM EST
    In typical form. Personal attacks and baseless accusations of racism. Disgusting.

    Parent
    You're the one who seems to excuse (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon May 25, 2015 at 01:41:32 AM EST
    a murderous(in the literal sense) riot by a somewhat less than multi-racial, predominately white, gang of armed motorcycle "enthusiasts", and complaint about riots that didn't end up in even one person getting shot and killed.

    Add to that your implication that the riots "seemed to follow him"' as though that was actually the case, that they wouldn't have taken place in lieu of his appearance, and yes, you do seem to be taking a racist line here.

    Parent

    Cleveland --Trial of Officer Brelo (none / 0) (#16)
    by whitecap333 on Mon May 25, 2015 at 01:41:44 AM EST
    It seems that the trial judge, John O'Donnell, took a rather different view of this affair than the media.  Every media account I've seen has Brelo, at the conclusion of the chase, "climbing," or "jumping" onto the hood of suspect Russell's car.  This is highly prejudicial to Brelo, if untrue, because it readily lends itself to the inference that Brelo wasn't quite "right in the head," or knew the suspects were unarmed.  O'Donnell found otherwise.  He says that Brelo, fearing that the suspect was going to ram the vehicle he was crouching behind, somehow managed to get up onto trunk of the suspect's vehicle.  Only moments before, Russell had attempted to run over Officer Wilfredo Diaz, who was approaching him on foot.  (Odd we never hear about that.)  He then drove straight at Brelo, who dove from his patrol car.  Here's what the judge found happened next, after Brelo got atop the trunk of the suspect's vehicle:  "So Brelo, afraid for his life, stepped onto the Malibu's hood and fired the night's final 15 shots through the windshield."  He further found that Brelo reasonably believed the suspects to be armed.  

    All in all, a refreshingly different "take," no?  Odd that O'Donnell (a Democrat, if it matters) didn't content himself with finding that the prosecution failed to meet its burden of proof.  In his capacity as the finder of fact, the judge made a number of determinations highly favorable to the defendant.  These make it largely immaterial whether Brelo did or did not fire the fatal shots.

    You should be able to peruse the judges decision (all 35 pages of it) at cleveland.com.

       

    huh... (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Mr Natural on Mon May 25, 2015 at 06:48:50 AM EST
    An alternate view.  The unarmed civilians in the car weren't trying to ram or run over anyone.  They were trying to escape from your prevaricating porcine pals, who had them surrounded and were gleefully emptying their semiautomatics into their victim's unarmed bodies.

    The idea that Officer Brelo could jump on the trunk or the hood of a dangerously moving car is laughable.  The car was stopped.  The victims were already morguebound.

    But the Brelo decision raises an interesting question.

    Are today's police deliberately shooting the he$$ out of people?  Has someone advised police departments that if a single bullet cannot be proven to be the cause of death, because so many bullets would individually have been fatal, then the shooter gets off as in this case and for that reason?

    Parent